A major wave of bird extinctions is now
occurring in Australia's temperate agricultural zone. Equilibrium
has not been reached, and there is no sign that it will unless land
clearing is halted and massive revegetation is carried out.
Declines are still occurring where clearing ceased decades ago, and
the effects of current clearing activity, particularly in
Queensland and NSW, have yet to be felt. The problems of the
temperate agricultural zone are set to be repeated in tropical
areas, where tropical woodlands are being cleared at unprecedented
rates. We can expect to lose at least half the birds in both these
areas if no action is taken, but there is no indication of the
final extent of biodiversity losses, which could be overwhelming in
the worst affected areas.

Land clearing has also had devastating effects
on other vertebrates. Between 1983 and 1993, land clearing led to
the deaths of at least a billion reptiles, or more than
100 million reptiles on average each year. Twenty species of
mammals have been declared extinct, and almost half of our
marsupials and monotremes are listed as extinct, endangered or
vulnerable, with habitat loss and degradation as a major cause.

Living organisms provide a range of biological
services that benefit people including pollination, recycling,
nitrogen fixation, replenishment of atmospheric oxygen and removal
of carbon dioxide. The value of these services is only starting to
be properly recognised, and we are realising that in dollar terms
alone, losses in biodiversity will have significant negative
effects on the biological services that they provide.

Native vegetation provides a range of on-farm
benefits such as the control of land degradation, salinity and soil
erosion; shelter and shade for stock; and habitat for birds and
other organisms that prey on pests. It protects livestock,
particularly lambs and calves, from heat and cold stress.
Windbreaks can have substantial benefits in protecting high value
crops from wind damage. It also aids in the soil nutrient cycle,
provides timber for on-farm use, and often enhances land values as
well as providing biodiversity and aesthetic benefits.

The present paper focuses on over-clearing and
subsequent degradation of land as the major threats to biodiversity
and agricultural productivity. The degradation that results from
over-clearing can be seen in the form of salination, waterlogging,
overgrazing, erosion, feral and woody weed invasions, loss of soil
fertility and structure, acidification, soil compaction and changed
hydrological dynamics. The land loses its resilience, so that
further disturbance has more drastic effects. The cost of
degradation in rural landscapes has been estimated as at least
$2 billion annually, and this figure is rising.

The present rate of land clearance in Australia
is the sixth highest in the world, and the highest in the developed
world. Three-quarters of current land clearing is occurring in
Queensland. However, as a percentage of total area, Tasmania's
clearing rate is the highest in Australia. In NSW, the Native
Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 contains loopholes and can be
circumvented fairly easily as there is little political will to
pursue prosecutions.

As the prime cause of unsustainability of
agriculture and loss of biodiversity, land clearing should cease.
Retention and replanting of native vegetation in agricultural areas
are needed. In the short term, the economic advantages of native
vegetation may not be apparent in all cases, and only by
considering the long term sustainability of land use can they be
justified. In one example, a sustained rehabilitation and
revegetation program resulted in the return of over three-quarters
of the bird species that inhabited the region's native woodlands
and wetlands more than a century ago, as well as improving
agricultural productivity.

The scale and extent of revegetation required to
address biodiversity and agricultural decline are considerably
greater than presently occur under existing government programs.
Existing approaches such as Landcare have been voluntary, and can
be argued to have delivered too little, too late. The main benefit
of Landcare has been in raising community awareness rather than
achieving the goal of Landcare, to achieve ecologically sustainable
development within 10 years.

A new approach based on legislation is
suggested, with the 'carrot' of grants, subsidies and tax
incentives to complement the 'stick' of legislation. It is proposed
that legislation be introduced to require landholders to produce a
Farm Plan consistent with regional strategies and agreed in
conjunction with officers of State and Territory Departments of
Agriculture. A crucial element of the Farm Plan approach would be
that native vegetation be retained and/or restored over at least 30
per cent of the farm area.

The proposed native vegetation
retention/plantings for productivity and biodiversity do not take
account of remedial works required to combat other aspects of land
and water degradation such as salinity, erosion and acid sulphate
soils. These appear to require expenditures far larger than present
funding aimed at sustainability, such as the Natural Heritage Trust
(Bushcare, Landcare) and even the recently announced National
Salinity Action Plan, and are beyond the scope of this paper.
Government agencies need to become more accountable for delivering
environmental outcomes against money spent. For instance, tree
plantings for salinity control should also bring biodiversity
benefits, and the need to enhance biodiversity should be considered
for any such plantings.

The solutions are not cheap or easy. They
require political commitment in all jurisdictions plus significant
public and private funds. However unless action is taken,
increasing areas of degraded land will have to be retired from
agriculture, and biodiversity will continue to decline.

Introduction

Birds are attractive and easily recognised, and
people relate to them. In Britain, birds have recently been
selected along with 11 other indicators (such as Gross Domestic
Product, air quality and proportion of people in work) as Britain's
official 'Headline Indicators' of sustainability.(1) A
high bird diversity tends to be correlated with a high diversity of
other vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, frogs), invertebrates and
trees. Because birds can be found in nearly all habitats in
Australia, they are a natural choice as indicators of the health of
ecosystems. There are a number of historical records from early
naturalists, giving a picture of bird numbers and diversity in
earlier times.

This paper will examine the evidence for bird
declines in Australia's woodlands and agricultural zones. The loss
of bird species in the sheep-wheat belt and elsewhere points to a
general loss of biodiversity and a broadscale dysfunction of
ecosystems. Figure 1(2) shows the extent of the
wheat/sheep zone in temperate Australia. Emphasis has been placed
on declining species-those species currently undergoing significant
contractions in range and/or abundance. The reasoning is that it is
much easier to 'save' species before they are reduced to just a few
hundred or a few thousand individuals when expensive recovery
actions (which may or may not be effective) are brought into play.
There is a chance that we can halt the declines in woodland birds
by concerted action now. In so doing, we will contribute to the
survival of many other, often unseen, species as well.

The main threats to bird survival in
agricultural areas is habitat loss caused by over-clearing of
native vegetation, and subsequent degradation of the remnants of
vegetation. The rate of clearance varies greatly between different
parts of Australia. The States and Territories have responsibility
for land clearance, and the success or otherwise of laws in
regulating clearance is examined. SA, Victoria and the ACT have
sound controls on clearing and WA has recently strengthened its
controls.

Over-clearing causes severe delayed effects on
the land itself and these are examined in the context of
agricultural productivity. In contrast, where native vegetation has
been retained, a range of agricultural benefits ensue; some of
these benefits are detailed.

The common cause of biodiversity losses and land
degradation in the agricultural zone, namely over-clearing of land,
points to a common solution. Many government programs at
Commonwealth and State level are aimed at halting land degradation.
This paper will consider the success or otherwise of these
programs, and what could be done to improve the outcomes, taking
into account the need to conserve biodiversity. Further measures
may be needed and a possible solution is put forward. It would be
overly optimistic to think that the solution put forward in this
paper, to retain/replant 30 per cent of agricultural land as native
vegetation is either achievable or would completely restore the
land and biodiversity to pre-European standards, but the
consequences of inaction are further declines in biodiversity and
increases in land degradation.

Most people are aware that species of plants and
animals have become extinct in historical times, but there has been
little recognition of the extent and gravity of the world
situation. The current rate of extinction for birds and mammals of
around one per cent per century is 100-1000 times the natural rate.
According to the latest World Conservation Union report, over
11 000 species of plants and animals are threatened, in almost
all cases as a result of human activities.(3) This
includes approximately 25 per cent of reptiles, 20 per cent of
amphibians and 30 per cent of fish (mainly freshwater) so far
assessed, as well as 24 per cent of mammal species and 12 per cent
of bird species. A new phenomenon, the 'empty forest', is starting
to appear. In Britain, where two national bird atlas projects have
been carried out, 54 per cent of bird species had declined
significantly in range nationally, and 81 per cent had declined in
rural areas over a period of just 15 years (1968-72 to
1986-90).(4) According to an eminent biologist, '[the
current destruction of the earth's biological diversity is
humanity's most disastrous mistake ... an era of loneliness is in
store for us]'.(5) The loss of biodiversity is
approaching what scientists are calling the sixth great extinction
episode, but the difference with this one is that it is being
brought about by one species-humanity.

In Australia, there still seems to be plenty of
birds and other animals in many places-have we escaped the crisis
here? Unfortunately the answer is no; of the world's mammals to
become extinct in the last 100 years, half were Australian. Overall
about 280 species, or nearly 17 per cent of Australia's terrestrial
vertebrates species, are listed by one organisation or another as
endangered, rare or threatened. For instance, one in four mammal
species is either extinct or threatened and nearly one in five bird
species is listed as threatened or of 'special
concern'.(6)

Biodiversity is directly important to people in
a number of ways, many of which we take for granted. Living
organisms provide a range of materials used by people for food,
fuel, fibre and medicines. Living organisms provide a range of
biological services that benefit people including pollination,
recycling, nitrogen fixation, replenishment of atmospheric oxygen
and removal of carbon dioxide. Our fresh water, clean air and
fertile soil are the work of our natural environment and are
integral to our well-being and economic prosperity. A recent report
has valued global ecosystems at $33 trillion per annum-more than
the global gross domestic product (GDP).(7)

Birds play a vital role in ecosystems by
pollinating native plants, dispersing seeds and removing pests from
crops and trees. By controlling insect populations, birds can keep
alive the patches of trees on farms. A healthy bird community is
able to remove 50-70 per cent of leaf-feeding insects and so help
reduce eucalypt die-back associated with fertiliser use and
over-clearing.

A further anthropocentric (people-centred)
benefit of biodiversity is the aesthetic pleasure gained from
nature, in the form of wildlife observation and ecotourism, and
vicariously through films and videos. The rural community is
particularly aware of nature as they tend to live outdoors. They
perceive a gradual and insidious loss of biodiversity-particularly
birds-in their surroundings and are often unaware of why this
should be so.

Where a species decreases in numbers and/or
range dramatically, it is likely to fall into the red list
categories of the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN). IUCN categories range from 'Critically endangered'
in which a taxon is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in
the wild in the immediate future, through Endangered and Vulnerable
to Lower Risk. The last category, Lower Risk, includes Near
Threatened taxa, those that are close to qualifying for Vulnerable.
It is indeed a slippery slope for listed species. Box 1 indicates
how many Australian birds fall into the various red list
categories.

Box 1: Current IUCN red list status of
Australian birds

The most recent Action Plan for Australian Birds
lists the current status of our birds that fall into IUCN's red
list categories. The Plan lists 25 taxa (species and sub-species)
as Extinct, 32 as Critically Endangered, 41 as Endangered, 82 as
Vulnerable and 81 as Near Threatened as at 30 June 2000. Of
the taxa known to have been present at the time of European
settlement in Australia in 1788, 1.9 per cent are extinct, 11.5 per
cent are Threatened and 6 per cent are Near Threatened. The
Endangered Species Program of Environment Australia and similar
programs in various State environment departments have the
responsibility to devise and carry out threat abatement and
recovery plans for these species, which are covered by threatened
species legislation.

Land clearance, habitat fragmentation and
degradation have had major impacts on a number of species and are
implicated in the demise of 43 per cent of these
species.(9) Perhaps it is not surprising that the same
basic cause underlies the observed declines of those species
discussed in the next section, which are not yet listed as
Threatened or Near Threatened.

The Action Plan for Australian Birds
2000 reaffirms that the principal threat to birds is loss of
habitat due to land clearing. More than 82 per cent of bird taxa
from mainland Australia and Tasmania have been affected by land
clearance at some stage, and for half it is a continuing threat.
Overgrazing by sheep and cattle, changed fire patterns and
introduced predators are other important threats. Over 40 per cent
of bird species affected by habitat loss occur in temperate or
subtropical woodlands,(10) the main areas cleared for
agriculture.

Results from the First (1977-1981) and Second
(1997-2001) Atlas of Australian Birds (see Appendix 1) provide an
excellent comparison of the changes that have occurred over the
intervening 20 years, and already some trends are emerging. Other
projects have also compared present bird numbers with those
previously present, and the results are often alarming.

A number of these studies show that woodland
birds are decreasing in numbers and in range. Much of the data
relates to Australia's temperate agricultural zone-the agricultural
landscapes of southern Australia dedicated to cereal growing and
sheep production. The open forest, woodland and mallee formations
that once existed have now been extensively modified, with over 80
per cent of the original vegetation having been cleared in most
regions. In some places, remnant vegetation is as low as five per
cent of the original.

Many of the once-common birds in these areas are
in decline. There is a trend towards local extinctions and reduced
avian diversity, despite the fact that in many regions of the
agricultural zone, especially the older settled areas, land
clearance has effectively ceased. A further trend is the increased
homogenisation of regional landscapes, with different areas losing
their distinctiveness and becoming more similar to one another.

Reid(11) has identified 20 species of
previously common woodland birds of the sheep-wheat belt of NSW
that are in decline. According to later reports, a further four
species must be added to the list.(12) The 24 species
are:

Emu

Hooded robin

Whistling kite

Eastern yellow robin

Painted button-quail

Grey-crowned babbler

Spotted nightjar

White-browed babbler

White-browed treecreeper

Varied sitella

Brown treecreeper

Crested shrike-tit

Speckled warbler

Crested bellbird

Chestnut-rumped thornbill

Rufous whistler

Southern whiteface

Restless flycatcher

Black-chinned honeyeater

White-browed woodswallow

Jacky winter

Dusky woodswallow

Red-capped robin

Diamond firetail

The characteristics
of declining woodland birds and regional variations in species
declines are shown in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 explains why birds are
lost from habitat fragments-even those fragments that contain
apparently 'good' habitat.

Threatened
Species

Australia has approached the conservation of
threatened native animals and birds species by species. In reality,
a broader approach is needed, with a shift from species
preservation to the management of ecosystems. Also, conservation
strategies must apply across all lands irrespective of tenure,
requiring the cooperation of land managers, land owners and
legislators.

Thirty seven species of land birds are listed as
Threatened under NSW legislation(13)-see Appendix 4.
Threatened species tend to be habitat specialists, and at least
three (Superb parrot, Swift parrot and Regent honeyeater) live in
the most fertile and productive types of woodland, those that were
preferentially cleared for agriculture.

Not all bird species are declining as a result
of land-clearing. Some have benefited by the open spaces and have
healthy, increasing populations, even to the point of becoming
pests in some areas. Many 'increasers' are birds of the arid and
semi-arid regions which easily adapt to open grassy agricultural
areas with an abundance of food and readily-available water. They
include seed-eaters such as the galah, corellas, some other
cockatoos, crested pigeon and some parrots, as well as other open
country species such as the Australian magpie, ravens, willy
wagtail, Australian magpie-lark, welcome swallow, skylark and
common starling. The pied currawong, a fruit-eater outside the
breeding season, is another increaser.

All of these 36 species are at least moderately
common in the NSW sheep-wheat belt, and seven are introduced
species-see Appendix 5. Some native species have benefited from the
more open habitat and extensive grasslands that now exist but many
need the remnants of natural vegetation at least for shelter and
breeding.

In the world rank of endemism, Australia ranks
first for both mammals and reptiles, second for birds, and fifth
for both higher plants and amphibians.(14) For example,
Australia has 850 species of reptiles, or about 12 per cent of the
world's entire reptile fauna. Of these 850 species, over 89 per
cent are endemic to Australia-a higher percentage of endemicity
than for birds (43 per cent) or mammals (82 per cent).

Between 1983 and 1993, land clearing led to the
deaths of at least a billion reptiles, or more than 100 million
reptiles on average each year.(15) In 1993, the Action
Plan for Australian Reptiles found that about 25 per cent of our
reptiles were in significant decline. Land-clearing in Queensland
alone over the past two years would have caused the deaths of
nearly 170 million reptiles. As with birds, habitat loss is by far
the greatest contributor to overall declines. Many reptile species
cannot exist in cleared agricultural areas and isolated patches of
native vegetation in a study area in central west NSW retained
only

26-63 per cent of the original number of
species.(16)

Mammals also fare badly under habitat loss, with
predation another important factor. So far 21 species of
mammals have been declared extinct, and almost half of our
marsupials and monotremes are listed as extinct, endangered or
vulnerable.(17) As with birds, even previously common
species are being affected. An example is the loss of brushtail and
ringtail possums from woodlands in WA, NSW, Queensland and
Victoria. Possums are even disappearing from large tracts of
woodland such as the Pilliga Forest of central west NSW. Here, the
logging of mature narrow-leaf ironbarks down to two large trees per
hectare compared with pre-European densities of 20-30 trees per
hectare is a major factor, as the mature ironbarks provided hollows
required by both species, especially ringtails.(18)

Land 'clearance' by people began with Aboriginal
use of fire. Perhaps unwittingly, this created a complex mosaic of
burnt and unburnt patches which supported a rich variety of flora
and fauna. The situation changed after European settlement over
200 years ago.

In the initial pastoral phase of agricultural
development in southern temperate Australia, squatters introduced
large numbers of sheep and cattle (some 10 million sheep and
2 million cattle by 1860). In this period, with hunting, loss
of Aboriginal burning regimes and limited clearing, some birds
declined and disappeared from the region, most notably the paradise
parrot (now extinct), bustards, brolgas and seed-eaters such as the
star finch, squatter pigeon and black-throated finch. The decline
of the paradise parrot was already far advanced by 1905, at which
time there was little land clearing.

The second phase, extensive clearing for
cropping and improved pastures, has affected the birds most
severely. This main phase of agricultural development from the late
1800s to the mid-late 1900s (and still continuing in Queensland and
parts of NSW) is now having a devastating effect on biodiversity as
revealed in declines in woodland birds. Northern Australia (NT,
Queensland, northern WA) is experiencing great increases in land
clearing for agriculture and bird declines from this phase are
likely to be detected in coming decades.

The third phase is intensification of
agriculture, increased cropping and irrigation, and urbanisation in
the form of rural residential subdivisions. In the northern and
western parts of the eastern wheat belt of NSW, land use is
intensifying accompanied by further clearing in previously marginal
lands and great increases in water diverted for
irrigation.(19) In general, the biodiversity effects of
this third phase are still to be felt. In Britain and Europe,
lapwings and small songbirds are disappearing from agricultural
landscapes where they appeared to be able to survive. It looks as
though Australia could lose many more species over the longer term,
including some presently classed as having stable or even
increasing populations. Figure 2 shows the percentage area of
remaining native woody vegetation as at 1990-91.

Australia's rate of land clearing is amongst the
highest in the world. Latest figures for the year 2000 show it has
the sixth highest clearing rate on earth (behind Brazil, Indonesia,
Sudan, Zambia and Mexico), at approximately 565 000 ha
per annum, a rise of seven per cent over the previous
year.(20)

Some States and Territories have sound native
vegetation planning systems in place, particularly SA, Victoria and
the ACT. WA has recently strengthened its land clearing controls.
The success of these planning systems in controlling land clearing
can be seen in the clearing rates for the various States and
Territories-see Table 1. Figure 3 shows the distribution of
clearing of wood vegetation for the years 1990-91 to 1995. Figure 4
shows the extent of clearing in hectares for this period.

Table 1: Land clearing in the States and
Territories for the year 2000(21)

In Queensland, the rate of land clearing was
290 000 ha per annum during 1991-95, 340 000 ha
per annum in the period 1995-97 and 425 000 ha per annum
in the period 1997-99. This last figure, amounting to 0.246 per
cent of the State's area, is 25 per cent higher than the 1995-97
figure and 47 per cent higher than for the 1991-95 period. Massive
panic clearing prior to passage of the Vegetation Management
Act 1999 caused an escalation possibly to more than
500 000 ha in 1999.(22)

The Act was proclaimed on 7 September 2000. This
legislation protects woodlands and forests that are endangered
(less than 10 per cent remaining) but the section protecting
woodlands and forests 'of concern' (10-30 per cent remaining) was
removed from the legislation after successful lobbying by farmers,
and failure to secure federal compensation for preserving these
communities.

Most land clearing is carried out in the
semi-arid and arid rangelands to create pasture. Nearly 60 per cent
of the clearing is in the Brigalow Belt and another 30 per cent in
the Mulga Lands and Desert Uplands. Coastal areas of SE Queensland
are being cleared for urban expansion and coastal areas in North
Queensland for sugar cane.

The NSW Native Vegetation Conservation
Act has been in operation for three years. However, over
300 000 ha have been cleared since the Act was
introduced, and of that nearly 78 000 ha was approved for
clearing in 2000.(23) The latest State of the
Environment Report suggests that clearing in NSW may be as much as
150 000 ha per annum.(24) Recent clearing has
been most extensive in a belt of land, 150 kilometres wide, along
the eastern and southern boundaries of the Western Division, and in
the northern wheat belt of the Central Division. In other places,
clearing is targeted at remnant vegetation.(25)

There have been no successful prosecutions under
the Act, although at least 614 breaches(26) involving
some 29 000 ha have been reported, including the
destruction of 8 000 ha of bush near Mungindi in July
2000 by accidental spraying of herbicide. As only about 30 per cent
of breaches are reported, the extent of illegal clearing may be
much higher.(27)

The Act contains loopholes and can be
circumvented fairly easily as there appears little political will
to pursue prosecutions. The Act allows clearing of two ha per
annum and seven trees per hectare per annum for on-farm use without
development consent. The New South Wales Department of Land and
Water Conservation, through the development consent process,
frequently imposes conditions requiring offsetting the clearing of
isolated patches by creating on-farm reserves free from grazing
pressure by fencing and/or replanting elsewhere. Such a system may
work in the mallee areas of southwestern NSW, accompanied by
removal of watering points, but generally plantings are expensive
to establish and less effective as habitat compared with conserving
native vegetation. The creation of on-farm reserves would
essentially be paid for by the gain to the individual from
additional clearing.(28)

The estimated ratio of clearing to revegetation
is at least 30:1, showing that NSW will have difficulty in abiding
by its commitment under the Natural Heritage Trust for no net loss
of native vegetation by 2001.(29)

As a percentage of total area, Tasmania's
clearing rate is the highest in Australia. Tasmania has controls on
native forest for logging purposes but has no legislation to
control broad acre agricultural clearing on private land. Land
clearing rates in Tasmania have been fairly consistent over the
last 25 years at about 10 000 ha per annum. The present
rate of clearance is about 17 000 ha per annum. This
figure includes losses from inundation, establishment of tree
plantations and clearance for agriculture. The 1999-2000 Annual
Report of the Tasmanian Forest Practices Board indicates a
permanent removal of native forests of some 17 000 ha per
annum over a three year period.

Almost all clearance now is to convert native
forests to plantations of exotic species (principally
Eucalyptus nitens and Pinus radiata). These
plantations are being established as part of the Regional Forest
Agreement. The Australian taxpayer is in effect subsidising the
conversion of native forest to plantation.(30)

The estimated clearing rate for the NT is
12 700 ha in 2000, comprising 'routine' annual clearing
estimated at 5000 ha, plus 2,700 ha cleared in the Tiwi
Islands and 5000 in the Katherine basin in 2000.(31) In
the past 5-7 years, there has been a significant increase in
clearing in the NT, and it is set to rise even more drastically in
coming years due to planned huge expansions in agriculture and
horticulture.(32) The intention is to clear over one
million hectares of native vegetation from the Katherine and Daly
River area, the Ord River, the semi-arid Sturt Plateau and the
Point Stuart - Wildman River area, among others. These
schemes show an intent to clear native vegetation on a scale and
intensity not experienced previously in the region.

With the north under pressure from development,
it appears that the NT is not benefiting from knowledge of the
problems of over-clearing in southern States.

The present estimate for land clearing in WA is
6000 ha per annum (Table 1). The Perth region had a clearing
rate of some 3000 ha per annum several years ago, and the
urban area has continued to expand. Rural clearing in the
south-west of the State is 3700 ha per annum.(33)
The Ord Scheme in the north of the State is set to expand by some
17 000 ha, which was approved in September 2000 for clearing.
Apparently the serious salinity problems of the southern wheat belt
are constraining further clearing there, but expansion is set to
occur in the north.

Victoria is the most heavily cleared State, with
approximately 70 per cent cleared. It continues to lose native
vegetation at about 2500 ha per annum or 0.011 per cent of the
State, a figure that does not take into account clearing under
legislative exemptions, clearing of scattered trees, and
degradation of habitat in remnants.

SA has the tightest controls on land clearing of
any State or Territory. In 1999-2000, permission was given to clear
1564 ha of land and nearly 6000 individual
trees.(34) These figures obviously exclude any illegal
clearing. Although the areas of clearing are small, they involve
some significant vegetation communities and habitats.

Land clearing is little documented in the ACT
but appears to be less than in other areas of Australia. Figures
for 1991-95 show that 1100 ha were cleared annually, as
revealed by satellite sensing.(35) Clearing for urban
expansion and rural residential development in the northern third
of the ACT is still occurring, with endangered ecological
communities at risk.

Despite evidence of land degradation,
agricultural productivity has been increasing at the rate of 2.5
per cent a year, due to extra inputs of fertilisers, water, and
genetic improvements. However, there is evidence that these
increases are unsustainable, and that they have occurred despite
increasing land degradation. A recent Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation publication states:

In fact, productivity has grown at an average of
2.5 per cent a year in the agricultural sector. Other
imports-fertiliser and water management requires, genetic
improvements and so on-have maintained and increased yields despite
increasing degradation.(36)

There is also the move to clear and crop
marginal areas such as the edges of the Western Division in NSW,
mentioned earlier. Sophisticated analysis in NSW has shown that
soil structure decline and increase in soil acidity both led to
reduced profits, but increases in dryland and irrigation salinity
did not-farmers moved to increase crop and animal production by
shifting to more intensive production on the better
land.(37) Thus, in the short term, it is possible for
agricultural productivity to remain stable or even to rise despite
land degradation.

If farms are overcleared, the basic resource,
the land, becomes degraded. The results can be seen in the form of
salination, waterlogging, overgrazing, erosion, feral and woody
weed invasions, loss of soil fertility and structure,
acidification, soil compaction and changed hydrological dynamics.
The land loses its resilience, so that further disturbance has more
drastic effects.

Land degradation is now recognised as a
mainstream issue, with about 70 per cent of agricultural land now
suffering from some form of degradation.(38) Many
processes such as salination are slow to start, but once begun,
they proceed rapidly. These processes have been called
'desertification'.

Clearing of land can result in invasion of woody
weeds. When an open woodland system is cleared, it often grows back
as thick woody regrowth, as can be seen in many places in
Queensland, NSW and elsewhere. This is a land degradation problem
for the future. The growth of native grasses is suppressed by the
woody weeds and the soil is exposed leaving it vulnerable to soil
erosion.

The failure of the market to allocate scarce
resources, such as land with native vegetation, in a manner that
maximises net benefits to the community is one argument for
government intervention in the market system.(39)

Australian soils are prone to salinity because
much of the country (for instance, the Murray Darling Basin) is
underlain by ancient marine sediments and there is also more salt
coming in from the sea with rainfall. Two types of salinity caused
by human activity can be recognised in Australia: dryland and
irrigation salinity.

Dryland salinity occurs in places where salt is
stored in the soil or groundwater and there is an increase in the
amount of surface water seeping down to the water table,
effectively filling up the water table and bringing salty
groundwater close to the surface. Shallow-rooted annual crops and
pastures that replace deep-rooted perennial vegetation have a much
lower capacity to capture and transpire water, thus allowing
significantly more water to pass through the soil to the water
table. There the excess water mobilises salt from groundwater and
brings it to the soil surface, from where it can also enter streams
and rivers. Irrigation salinity is due to more surface water being
added to the land, thus raising groundwater levels. Figure 5
forecasts areas of high risk of dry land salinity in the year
2050.

The solution to dryland salinity is to replant
perennial vegetation, which may involve revegetation of over 50 per
cent of the landscape. However, the effects of clearing of the
upper catchment are felt in other areas, namely downstream, with a
certain lag time. Conversely, revegetation may need to be carried
out in different areas from the sites of greatest
impact.(40)

Numerous studies have shown that native fauna
require native vegetation for their survival. For instance, the
Birds on Farms survey carried out by Birds Australia
showed that native vegetation provides the best habitat for
wildlife,(41) while clearing of native vegetation
results in a dramatic decrease in the richness of reptile species
in an area.(42)

Native vegetation provides a range of on-farm
benefits such as the control of land degradation, salinity and soil
erosion; shelter and shade for stock; and habitat for birds and
other organisms that prey on pests. It protects livestock,
particularly lambs and calves, from heat and cold stress.
Windbreaks can have substantial benefits in protecting high value
crops from wind damage. It also aids in the soil nutrient cycle,
provides timber for on-farm use, and often enhances land values.
However, in the short-term, the economic advantages of native
vegetation may not be apparent in all cases, and only by
considering the long term sustainability of land use can the
benefits be realised.

A number of studies are showing the value of
native vegetation in enhancing agricultural productivity. There is
an increase in wheat and crop yields in sheltered zones of between
22-47 per cent (Rutherglen, Victoria); an increase in lupin yields
of 27 per cent in the area between windbreaks (Gibson, south-west
WA); increased yields of 25-45 per cent in sheltered crops of
wheat, oats and lupins, and yield increases of 20-100 per cent in
horticultural crops (area not specified). There is also increased
net cereal yield of 15 per cent due to the sheltering effect of
windbreaks in a USA cereal-growing area.(43)

Trees can also benefit pasture growth. A 20-30
per cent higher yield was obtained in protected farm areas,
compared with unprotected areas, with annual benefits of $38-66
per ha (mainland Australia) and a 20 per cent increase in
average annual pasture growth in protected areas of a farm
(Australia and overseas).(44)

A study near Gunnedah in northern NSW found that
gross value of pasture output was highest where the proportion of
tree cover across the farm was at 34 per cent, with no further
increases in output being achieved beyond this
point.(45) While presence of canopy cover can result in
apparently lower levels of pasture biomass in parts of Queensland,
the species of grasses may be more productive with higher levels of
digestibility and protein, and so may not result in lower animal
production. Canopy cover can reduce soil temperature, moderate the
extremes of temperature, and reduce evapo-transpiration leading to
shifts in species composition in the herbaceous layer towards more
productive pasture grasses.(46)

Livestock production is enhanced in areas with
native vegetation. Over a five year trial, a 31 per cent increase
in wool production and 21 per cent increase in liveweight was found
in sheltered areas, along with 18 per cent more pasture in
sheltered zones (Armidale, NSW). In North Queensland, shelter belts
resulted in 10-16 per cent more lambs present at marking due to
reduction in the heat load on ewes, as well as faster growth rates
and more wool from lambs in the first 16 months of life.
Availability of shelter resulted in a 50 per cent reduction in
lambing losses (Eastern Highlands of SW Victoria) and greatly
reduced lamb mortality (western Victoria, SA). Dairy production is
improved where shelter is present-up to 17 per cent increase in
dairy milk production for sheltered areas, and conversely,
unsheltered cows have 26 per cent less dairy milk production than
unshaded stock.(47)

The immediate, direct economic benefits of
remnant vegetation have been studied in NE Victoria and for the NSW
Murray Catchment area. Under current management, 52 per cent of
Victorian participants in the study and about 82 per cent of NSW
participants were gaining a net economic benefit from their remnant
native vegetation in the form of stock and crop shelter, firewood
production and prevention of land degradation. However, under a
more conservation-oriented management regime, the vast majority of
landholders would experience a net financial loss.(48)
The economic costs associated with conservation management are such
that they require significant financial incentives for landholders
to undertake activities that benefit biodiversity and long-term
agricultural sustainability.

The unsustainability of agriculture and the loss
of biodiversity have a common cause, which for much of southern
temperate Australia stems from over-clearing and subsequent land
and water degradation. The common cause points to a common
solution. It is not only possible but highly desirable to attain
the twin goals of sustainable agriculture and conservation of
biodiversity by concerted action to retain and replant native
vegetation. As shown above, clearing rates are at record levels
through large parts of Australia, despite the clear links between
over-clearing and land and water degradation and loss of
productivity. In this view. it can be argued that the clearing of
further native vegetation should effectively cease.

With agricultural areas in every State and
Territory still subject to very substantial clearing, most
remaining large tracts of native vegetation occur in national parks
and State forests. Ecologists warn that these are not sufficient to
conserve biodiversity and that conservation on private land is
vital.(49) A number of State programs such as Land for
Wildlife in Victoria and Land for Nature in Queensland seek to
retain and/or plant native vegetation on private land. Victoria's
Land for Wildlife program was established in 1981 and has operated
in its current form since 1990. As it does not offer financial
incentives, it only attracts landholders convinced of the value of
conservation and those who seek advice on how to manage to maintain
this value. It is not legally binding on participants. Similar
schemes are now operating in Tasmania, WA and parts of Queensland.
Queensland's Voluntary Conservation Agreement project has protected
1315 ha of private land by means of rate discounts to
landholders.(50)

National programs such as Save the Bush and One
Billion Trees have had a similar aim. The two largest national
programs, Bushcare and Landcare, are discussed briefly below, as
well as a non-government program, Greening Australia.

A national approach to increasing the skills of
farmers is the expanded FarmBis(51) program, with
funding of $167.5 million over four years. Property management
planning is part of this voluntary program.

The Decade of Landcare began in l989 with $340
million in funding over a 10 year period. This funding was greatly
increased with an expenditure of $450 million over the past five
years to the National Landcare Program.

About one-third of farmers are members of the
4500 Landcare groups. Group members decide on priorities and carry
out the works. A real benefit from Landcare has been the
heightening of community awareness about sustainability and
environmental matters.

However, an unintended effect of Landcare
funding is that it has made it easier for State Governments, with
responsibility for land management, to 'cost shift' and substitute
federal money and positions for what was previously supplied from
State funds. Federal funds pay for positions such as Landcare
Coordinators, allowing the State-funded agricultural extension
officers to be withdrawn.

The recent Olympic Landcare initiative resulted
in the planting of over 2 million trees around Australia since
1998. Despite impressive figures like this, Australia's poor record
on land clearing means that for every tree planted under the
Federal Government's Natural Heritage Trust program, 100 000
were cleared by landholders.(52)

Landcare funding in the latest Budget (May 2001)
has been cut dramatically over the next four years, from $101
million this financial year, to $70 million, $53 million,
$40 million and $41 million in subsequent years. However, from
2002-03, it is expected that additional funds would be available
for Landcare from the extension of the Natural Heritage
Trust.(53)

A recent evaluation of the Decade of Landcare
has been carried out by its architects, Phillip Toyne and Rick
Farley.(54) This evaluation has found that, despite the
massive increases in funding and resources to overcome the chronic
decline of our lands and waterways, most of the problems that the
Decade of Landcare addressed are still increasing in severity and
scale. Landcare can be judged a success only by its achieving a
change in community attitudes. Its main benefit has been in raising
community awareness rather than achieving the goal of Landcare, to
achieve ecologically sustainable development within 10 years. This
goal proved to be too optimistic; land degradation has not been
fixed in that time frame and is in fact worsening. Nor have there
been substantial improvements in clearly defined priority issues
such as land clearing, salinity or water quality.

The analysis has shown deficiencies in Landcare
policy. These relate to the failure of Landcare to position its
actions in the bigger picture, for instance in relation to
structural adjustment, market systems, macroeconomic policy and
economic incentives, and even as regards State Government
responsibilities, regional structures, service provision and
incentives.(55)

Australia's largest revegetation program,
Bushcare, is a $350 million, four year program funded through
the Natural Heritage Trust. Bushcare works with community groups,
land managers, industries and government agencies to manage remnant
native vegetation sustainably and revegetate for a range of
purposes including conserving biodiversity, rehabilitating degraded
areas, improving agricultural production and conserving wildlife
habitat. Bushcare provides information on revegetation, assists
with planning projects under the National Heritage Trust (and so
links with Landcare), helps people gain access to funding to
protect remnant vegetation, and organises information days and
workshops on topics such as seed collection and native plant
propagation. The program's national goal is to reverse the
long-term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native
vegetation cover.

Under this program, just over
10 000 ha were planted to 31 January 1999,(56)
and it is expected that at the end of the program there will be
150 000 ha of revegetation. However, some projects were
not able to achieve their revegetation aims due to budgetary
limitations. The mid-term review of the program showed that it will
have very limited impacts on addressing loss of biodiversity
because of the generally small scale and scattered distribution of
the projects in relation to the scale of the problem. It is also
not effectively addressing sustainable production issues or other
important environmental problems such as dryland
salinity.(57)

Another Natural Heritage Trust program deals
with farm forestry. The original program was allocated $17 million
under the 1995 Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, to support the
establishment of regional plantation committees, regional projects
and complementary national initiatives. The program was aimed at
commercial wood production on cleared agricultural land and
integration of this wood production into farming systems.

The Farm Forestry Program was expanded to the
extent of $36.5 million under the National Heritage Trust, with the
aim of encouraging the incorporation of commercial tree growing and
management into farming systems for the purposes of wood and
non-wood production, increasing agricultural productivity and
sustainable natural resources management.

The mid-term review found that the short horizon
of funding for the program was at odds with the long term
investments required for farm forestry. Although farm forestry has
the potential to make positive contributions to land, water and
biodiversity conservation, it is often perceived to be in tension
with biodiversity objectives. A longer time frame is needed for
proper assessment of the outcomes of the program against its
objectives.(58)

Greening Australia is a non-government,
not-for-profit national organisation which has been working with
rural and city groups, farmers, schools and business in every State
and Territory since 1982. It aims to protect remnant vegetation and
biodiversity, repair and prevent land degradation, improve water
quality and provide habitat for native fauna, by helping the
community to conserve and plant native trees, shrubs and grasses.
It supports Bushcare and the Farm Forestry program, and manages
planting programs for local and State governments. Greening
Australia operates independent seedbanks, seed orchards and
nurseries.

The Commonwealth Government's Farm Forestry
program, run by Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia,
works at the interface between agriculture, forestry and the
environment. Greening Australia assists this program by helping and
advising farmers and landholders to manage trees on farms for
profit. Trees can provide timber and non-timber products such as
oils, seeds and nuts, and shelter for stock, as well as conserving
biodiversity and lowering water tables, thus reducing soil
salinity.

Their revegetation project in the ACT and
southeastern NSW has resulted in the establishment of 3400 km of
treeline using direct seeding techniques on 400 properties, the
planting of 40 000 trees and shrubs each year, and the
establishment of 50 ha of vegetation
corridors.(59)

The Prime Minister's Media Release of 10 October
2000 outlined a National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality. The Commonwealth has committed $700 million over seven
years to address salinity and water quality problems, and is
requiring a dollar for dollar matching commitment from the States.
However, to date only three States-SA, Queensland and NT-had
committed to the plan, with NSW and Victoria likely to agree. The
SA Government has committed $100 million towards controlling
salinity. WA has not committed to the plan, despite having
significant salinity and water quality problems.

The Action Plan will be directed towards 20 or
so highly affected catchments and regions in all States and NT.
Part of the Plan involves a ban on further land clearing if this
would lead to unacceptable land or water degradation. Queensland,
NSW and Tasmania are mentioned as possibly needing to tighten
clearing regulations in order to combat salinity.

The work required under the Action Plan will
take at least 6-8 years, possibly longer. Therefore it requires a
sustained commitment from all parties to succeed.

The Action Plan is more focussed in its approach
than any previous attempts to attack salinity. For the first time
ever, national salinity targets are being developed. Cumbersome
grants processes are being replaced with direct funding to
accredited regional strategies, with more emphasis on monitoring
and reporting, and national oversight by a Natural Resources
Ministerial Council.

However, there is a need to incorporate
biodiversity benefits into regional strategies. For instance, tree
plantings to control salinity and other land degradation problems
such as soil erosion, acidification, nutrient runoff, and decline
in soil structure, should be carried out with the specific aim of
enhancing biodiversity as well. Principles have been developed that
enhance regeneration activities to increase their value for
conserving wildlife.

Individual farmers, families and groups have
been restoring degraded rural landscapes often independently of
organised activities such as Landcare. In each case, the
biodiversity benefits are apparent, but not all have realised
economic benefits from their efforts.

Lanark

Thirty five years ago, this 800 hectare property
in the Western District of Victoria produced nearly 200 bales of
wool in good years, as well as raising fat lambs for the domestic
market on its improved pastures. Then the 1967 drought brought
physical, emotional and financial hardship to the district and
caused a re-evaluation for the owners of this typical grazing
property, John and Cicely Fenton. The Fentons decided that
production levels of the occasional 'boom' years were
unsustainable, and set about re-creating a balance between the
farming enterprise and the natural environment, to the overall
benefit of both. This exercise was intended to go beyond just
drought-proofing the property.

At a time when other Western District farmers
were still clearing native vegetation and draining wetlands on
their properties, the Fentons started to do the opposite,
reinstating the wetlands that had once existed, fencing off large
parts of existing paddocks, and planting trees in the fenced-off
areas. They hoped to create an environment where wildlife could
coexist with livestock, and buffer Lanark's production systems
against the vagaries of the climate, thus ensuring the future
viability of their family and the land itself.

Since 1967, the Fentons have planted over
80 000 trees and shrubs in shelter belts, plantations and
native woodlands featuring locally endemic species. They still
produce wool, raise fat lambs and grow some cereal crops. Fifty per
cent of the property is sown to improved pasture, and 30 per cent
is native pasture, the latter acting as a buffer zone between
improved pastures and sensitive wildlife habitat that is vulnerable
to nutrient runoff.

The Fentons have spent 40 years planting trees
at an estimated cost of $320 000, of which little will be
returned in their lifetime. Farm forestry now covers six per cent
of Lanark, and could generate up to 70 per cent of the net farm
income from 2009, by harvesting approximately two ha annually
from a total of 52 ha. The work done on Lanark is not
reflected in the farm's immediate profitability, but the Fentons
have shown that with long-term vision and commitment, trees can
provide a reliable income. Their farm is now well-insulated against
drought, salinity, water contamination, algal blooms, insect pests
and disease.

The birds on Lanark reveal some of the
biodiversity benefits of the Fentons' actions. A local naturalist
has kept meticulous records of the birds over 45 years, revealing
that 155 bird species are now to be found there. This is despite
considerable losses to the avifauna with surveys revealing only 40
species present in 1956. It is thought that the pre-European
species list would have been close to 200 species; thus over
three-quarters of the bird species that inhabited the region's
native woodlands and wetlands more than a century ago have
returned.(60)

Genaren Hill Landcare Group

'Genaren' is a conservatively-managed property
in the Central West of NSW, within the sheep-wheat belt. It
includes well-managed native grasslands and tree cover, with over
400 native plant species. It has never been overstocked and some
land has never been ploughed. As a result of this sympathetic
management, it contains a diverse set of flora and fauna, and is
the focus of many of the Genaren Hill Landcare Group's activities.
A recent activity is fencing off a six square kilometres patch of
bushland with cat- and fox-proof fencing, and reintroduction of the
brush-tailed bettong (Bettongia pencillata) to the
enclosure. The underlying philosophy of the group includes a desire
for economic benefits to flow from encouraging biodiversity.
However, the group is unusual in that their restoration activities
have gone beyond the usual tree planting to consider the health of
organisms that live in the soil and its dependence on animals such
as the brush-tailed bettong.(61)

Dairy Farm at Jeetho, Victoria-Landcare Success

In Victoria, the owners of a 110 ha dairy
farm at Jeetho, Tom and Sue Loughridge, started to integrate
landcare practices with traditional farming techniques. They began
an extensive tree planting program in the early 1980s, planting
some 20 000 trees over 16 years. Their efforts have been
rewarded as they have stopped soil losses from landslips, and
tunnel and streambank erosion, in this landslip area. Most
importantly, they have also been able to profit economically from
their efforts, with the dairy herd increasing from 160 in 1982 to
230 at present. Fifteen per cent of the farm has been retired from
grazing to stabilise the soil, which also benefits
biodiversity.(62)

Murray and Murrumbidgee Catchment, NSW

The economic benefits of sustainable farm
management, including retention of native vegetation (trees, shrubs
and native perennial grasses) have been demonstrated in a practical
fashion by farmers of the NSW Murray Catchment. For instance, the
Strong family at 'Arcadia' near Narrandera, NSW, have used holistic
grazing management principles combined with other sustainable
practices, such as retention of native vegetation and revegetation
with native grasses, to save up to $40 000 a year on chemical
bills for pesticides. The Taylor family at 'Pooginook' near
Jerilderie in the NSW Riverina district have also adopted holistic
farm management, with increases in native perennial grasses, shrubs
and trees, and improvements in animal health and ground cover, even
in dry years. A further example is the Sloane family of 'Kilnyana',
who have retained significant areas of native vegetation on their
property, providing important shelter for animal health and
production, and also for crop and soil protection. Their bush
remnants are significant in terms of wildlife habitat and also
provide a basis for a sustainable approach to land management. The
family derives a great deal of pleasure from their remnants, over
and above monetary values.(63)

The lack of strong land clearing controls in
some States and Territories, notably Queensland, Tasmania and the
NT, and the failure to fully implement the provisions of the
clearing laws in NSW, has been mentioned earlier as grave concerns.
The SA experience has been that voluntary approaches to limiting
vegetation clearance do not work.(64) It is also
apparent that revegetation programs relying largely on voluntary
commitment, some of which are outlined above, are inadequate to
address revegetation on the scale required. Present schemes are
revegetating only a small fraction of the land now being cleared.
Therefore it is apparent that some other mechanisms must be brought
into play to cap or halt land clearing.

The federal Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 (the EPBC Act)
replaces much previous federal environmental
legislation.(65) Previously, the Commonwealth used
various powers under the Commonwealth Constitution Act
1900 to intervene in some famous environmental disputes,
besides having its own more recent legislation. Under the new EPBC
Act, the Commonwealth is empowered to intervene in six areas of
national environmental significance, namely:

the Commonwealth marine environment

nuclear actions

World Heritage properties

Ramsar wetlands of international importance

migratory species protected under international agreements,
and

nationally threatened species and communities.

The legislation does not have explicit powers to
deal with the nationally significant issue of salinity, as two of
the fundamental causes of salinity, land clearing and water
allocation, are excluded as issues of national environmental
significance. Other issues excluded from the 1999 legislation are
greenhouse and climate change, native forests and
sustainability.

Land clearance and climate change were listed as
Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) under the EPBC Act. There is no
automatic requirement for a Threat Abatement Plan under the EPBC
Act, as existed under the old Endangered Species Protection Act
1992. Nevertheless, the way is now open for a Threat Abatement
Plan for land clearing, which could involve (federal) legislation.
Many consider that land clearing needs a suite of strict
legislation similar to that being implemented for long-line
fishing. The federal government would have had automatic power to
intervene if land clearance had been added to the list of six
matters of national environmental significance.

Four ecological communities occurring in
Queensland and northern NSW were recently gazetted as endangered
ecological communities under the EPBC Act. These are Brigalow;
semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow belt (north and south)
and Nandewar regions; bluegrass dominated grasslands of the
Brigalow belt; and the community of native species dependant on
natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin.
These gazettals will mean that recovery plans will have to be
developed for these four communities. It is ironic that much of the
land clearing that caused the endangerment of at least three of
these communities occurred in just the past few years.

Thus the framework exists for broader
Commonwealth involvement in land clearing issues. Any Threat
Abatement Plan would require State and Territory cooperation,
particularly from Queensland and NSW, but there is provision for
the Minister to prepare and implement plans nationally for KTPs if
this cannot be done in cooperation with the States and
Territories.

Land and water degradation problems-dryland
salinity, increased soil erosion, degraded river systems, poor
water quality and loss of biodiversity-can be caused by
over-clearing. Private lands hold the key to conserving
biodiversity, as national parks and State forests alone are not
sufficient. Thus farmers have a vital role to play in restoring
degraded agricultural systems and in conserving biodiversity.

In a new approach, landholders could be required
to develop Farm Plans under my proposed Sustainable Agriculture
legislation in the States and Territories, to ensure cost-effective
measures to rehabilitate the land. Legislation controls virtually
every other facet of activity, and there are sound reasons to
include farming enterprise under legislative control-a principal
one being 'mutual obligation'-when public money is involved, there
should be a parallel commitment to agreed outcomes by the
recipients.

Under legislation proposed here, landholders
would have to develop an integrated Farm Plan. The purpose of the
Farm Plan is to maintain or restore the viability of the farm by
taking a variety of measures to conserve and enhance native
bushland, protect waterways, maintain or improve soil fertility and
structure, and prevent erosion, salination and waterlogging. The
Farm Plan would be submitted to a local Extension Officer employed
by a Sustainable Agriculture Branch within the State/Territory
Departments of Agriculture for discussion and approval. Extension
Officers would have responsibility to ensure that individual plans
were coordinated under Regional Plans. After approval, the
landholder would take actions identified under the Farm Plan.

Financial assistance for works carried out under
the Farm Plan could be provided in the form of tax deductions, tax
concessions and direct grants. The type and extent of financial
assistance to landholders is not discussed in detail here but
indicative cost-sharing arrangements between landholders, private
investors and governments for important elements of reparative
activities is given in the Australian Conservation
Foundation/National Farmers Federation sponsored report 'Repairing
the Country'.(66) An Environmental Levy may be needed to
fund the proposed changes. Such a levy could also be used to fund
the program suggested in this paper, to repair the country
environment.

Rick Farley and Philip Toyne have proposed that
a one per cent National Landcare tax be imposed for the next 10
years to raise funds in the order of $30 billion. The idea of a
'Green Tax' is being supported increasingly. The bipartisan House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage,
chaired by National Party MP the Hon Ian Causley, recently released
a report 'Co-ordinating Catchment Management'. One of the
recommendations was that the Government consider a National
Environmental Levy to be put in place for 25 years. Subsequently,
NSW Premier Bob Carr called for a referendum on a national green
levy.

On 15 June 2001 the Treasurer, the Hon Peter
Costello MP, announced that he will introduce amendments to
taxation laws to ensure that private landholders who enter in
covenants to set aside part or all of their land for conservation
in perpetuity will have their capital gains tax liability on that
land reduced or eliminated.(67) He said that only those
covenants entered into for consideration, which will enhance
environmental values and which are approved by the Federal
Environment minister will be eligible for the new tax
treatment.

The focus of the Farm Plan is farm productivity
in perpetuity. The intention is that farm land be restored and
rehabilitated in accordance with an agreed Farm Plan. As part of
the Plan, a minimum percentage of 30 per cent of each farm should
be set aside as native bushland and managed for wildlife
values.(68) For many agricultural areas, other major
issues of the region such as over-grazing, excessive burning, weed
invasion and exotic pest control may have to be addressed in the
Farm Plan. Where licences are involved, the minimum 30 per cent
vegetation/revegetation requirement should be part of the licence
agreement. The intention is that all properties should comply with
the vegetation/revegetation and other requirements of the proposed
Act.

Bushland would be fenced off to restrict grazing
and contain native trees and understorey plants. The positions,
sizes and shapes of the bushland would be dictated initially by
where native vegetation occurs. Plantings are needed if no native
vegetation occurs. Natural regeneration is preferred over plantings
and plantings according to the Farm Plan are preferred over
unplanned plantings. Plantings could increase the area of a
vegetation patch, link patches of vegetation, and/or revegetate a
river corridor.

The first priority is to retain what is left,
even scattered trees in paddocks or degraded bushland remnants.
Riparian areas should form the basis for the Plan, with fenced
plantings of native tree and shrub species linking with existing
remnants of vegetation. Remnants should be fenced off from stock
and rehabilitated by natural revegetation or planting. Natural
revegetation is generally quicker than planting and likely to
include the right mix of local native species. The area reserved
from farming should not just be the hillsides and ridge-tops with
poorer soil and vegetation but include lower slopes and flats.

To achieve the minimum area of native bushland,
the original remnants would usually have to be extended by
plantings. There is no minimum patch size, but a desirable
objective is a minimum of 10 hectares.(69) Native
vegetation should not be 'tidied up' by removal of dead timber,
which is an important resource for many native birds and other
animals. Surface roughness and patchiness should be restored using
rocks, logs, coarse litter and other debris.

Riparian vegetation is important wildlife
habitat. Where creeks and drainage lines occur, the Farm Plan must
address the issue of riparian vegetation, fencing off and
revegetation with native species carried out where necessary. It is
highly desirable that much of the length of waterways is fenced off
from stock; such fencing should be specified in the Farm Plan.

Some corridor plantings are valuable in linking
remnants and allowing the movement of native birds and other
animals. The best place for corridors is along creeks and drainage
lines but landholders may choose to use an adjacent roadside or
other corridor as a starting point for their own revegetation
programs.

An excellent guide to enhancing revegetation
activities for maximum benefits to wildlife is
available.(70)

Revegetation efforts should be assessed to see
if they have been successful in achieving their aims. Benefits for
farmers include benefits for adjoining crops and pasture, for
livestock production and provision of timber for firewood, fencing
and brushwood. Other benefits could accrue from forestry: increased
agricultural production from controlling land degradation both
on-site and off-site; honey and beeswax collection; seed
collection; aesthetics; habitat for animals that control pests;
tourism and recreation; and other minor uses.(71)

From a conservation viewpoint, several methods
can be used to assess the effectiveness of revegetation in
improving the sustainability of existing remnants and in enhancing
its value for wildlife. At the start of the program, remnant
vegetation can be assessed using satellite imagery combined with
on-ground inspections to determine its initial
sustainability.(72) A high rating (Sustainability Index,
SI, of 1) indicates highly sustainable remnant (with excellent
chance of long-term survival) and woodland with high conservation
value, through progressively lower ratings to SI 5, a remnant that
is unsustainable under current management practice and with little
conservation value. If remnant vegetation on farms is rehabilitated
and enlarged, the Sustainability Index should improve, with more
patches receiving a rating of SI 1 and SI 2; SI 3 trending towards
SI 1 or SI 2, and SI 4 and SI 5 achieving at least a minimum
sustainability of SI 3.

A second possible criterion is the continued
presence of healthy populations of birds, as revealed by long-term
studies. A species believed to be most limited by a particular
factor (such as size and isolation) is referred to as a focal
species. A measure of success would be the presence of focal
species such as the rufous whistler and hooded
robin.(73)

The cost of degradation in rural landscapes has
been estimated as at least $2 billion annually, and this
figure is rising. Commonwealth expenditure relating to land and
water degradation last year was around $500 million. This
expenditure has increased awareness and understanding of the
problems but has not delivered strategic, long-term answers to
problems such as salinity.

Even the expenditure of $200 million per annum
by Commonwealth and State Governments announced in the Prime
Minister's Salinity Action Plan in October 2000 is nowhere near the
$6.5 billion in Government and private expenditure that the
Australian Conservation Foundation and National Farmers Federation
Report estimated is needed annually to combat salinity and other
land and water degradation problems. The report 'Repairing the
Country' prepared on behalf of ACF and NFF estimates that an
investment of $6.5 billion per year for 10 years is
required to implement the changes required to manage our land,
water and vegetation sustainably. This consists of a capital
investment of $60 billion and an ongoing maintenance program of
$0.5 billion per year. Government expenditure of approximately
$3.7 billion per annum over the next decade is needed, plus
strategic partnerships with the community and the private
sector.(74)

Some respected business and financial leaders
are urging much greater incentives to halt land and water
degradation and salinity, and to encourage efficient production by
modern agribusinesses.(75) Former Reserve Bank Governor,
Bernie Fraser, has urged the Government to reduce taxes on
employment and investment and replace them with taxes on pollution
and other practices with detrimental environmental
effects.(76)

The implementation of Farm Plans throughout
Australia is one step towards achieving ecologically sustainable
development (ESD) in our rural lands. If we fail to take up the
challenge, our rural productivity and biodiversity are highly
likely to decline still further.

Australia is a biodiversity 'hot spot' with a
high proportion of endemic species. Eighty-nine percent of the
world's reptile species, 82 per cent of mammals and 43 per cent of
birds occur only in Australia. Evidence has been presented that
biodiversity is in decline in Australia, with all vertebrate groups
affected.

Birds can be used as indicators of the health of
the environment as there are large data sets on birds. A major wave
of declines in previously-common birds is now occurring in the
temperate agricultural zone, where land clearance has effectively
ceased. The main reason for the declines is loss of habitat caused
by over clearing of land for agriculture. The habitat fragments
that remain after clearing are subject to further degradation, thus
making them effectively smaller over time.

There is a lag between clearing and subsequent
loss of bird species. This lag occurs because birds may be able to
survive in fragments for some time but are lost when a further
stress such as drought occurs. The fragmented patch of vegetation
is not able to provide for their long term survival. Declines in
woodland birds are often manifest as local extinctions leading to
regional extinctions and contraction of range.

As a result of over-clearing, the evidence
suggests clearly that much of the agricultural zone is experiencing
land degradation in the form of salination, waterlogging,
overgrazing, erosion, feral and woody weed invasions, loss of soil
fertility and structure, acidification, soil compaction and changed
hydrological dynamics. Despite land degradation, overall
agricultural productivity, however, has not declined, as farming
shifts to new areas or farmers crop and graze their better land
more intensively. The underlying problem of land degradation means
that productivity is not sustainable. Thus over-clearing of land
results in a of loss of biodiversity and unsustainability of
agriculture.

In a new approach, landholders could be required
to develop Farm Plans under proposed Sustainable Agriculture
legislation in the States and Territories, to ensure cost-effective
measures to rehabilitate the land.

The focus of the Farm Plan is farm productivity
in perpetuity. The intention is that farm land be restored and
rehabilitated in accordance with an agreed Farm Plan. As part of
the Plan, a minimum percentage of 30 per cent each farm should be
set aside as native bushland and managed for wildlife values, with
benefits for biodiversity and for agricultural sustainability.

Appendix 1: Bird Surveys
Carried out by Birds Australia

The largest bird interest group in Australia is
Birds Australia with approximately 6000 members. This
organisation has been able to marshall thousands of volunteers to
carry out bird surveys. Their main surveys have been the First and
Second Atlases of Australian Birds, the Australian Bird Count,
Birds on Farms and the Nest Record Scheme. The survey for the first
Atlas was carried out in the period 1977-1981 culminating in a
published report.(77) The Second Atlas (1997-2001) is
currently underway, with a final report to Environment Australia
planned for soon after August 2001. The Second Atlas, with data
collected for each 1 degree grid square across Australia, is being
carried out by some 5000 volunteers supported by Government funding
from the Natural Heritage Trust. Such large, important datasets
would be impossibly expensive to finance through normal research
channels. It is important to recognise that Atlas data is not
simply 'presence' but also an estimate of 'abundance'. The two
Atlases therefore provide an excellent comparison of the changes
that have occurred over the intervening 20 years and already some
trends are emerging.

It is important to note that declining woodland
birds are not rare or threatened species, but rather those that
were 'common' not long ago. Sedentary species tend to be harder hit
by extensive land clearance than mobile species. The most affected
species are characterised by feeding and dwelling on the ground
and/or in low shrubs. Historically, they had large ranges, which
are now being greatly reduced, at least in the sheep-wheat belt.
They are now at risk of local extinction across extensive parts of
the landscape. The pattern of events appears to be a decrease in
local populations, leading to extinction in those areas, and
contraction of the range to the most favoured locality for the
birds. For instance, grey-crowned babblers are extinct in South
Australia, very rare in Victoria and are declining at the edges of
their range in NSW, but are still common in Queensland. Thus they
are retreating to their most favoured habitat. Figure 6 shows the
extent of woodlands in Australia.

Source: National Forest Inventory (1997) and
Bureau of Rural Sciences.

When present bird distribution and abundance has
been compared with the extensive data from the First Atlas over an
area of 285 square kilometres in the heart of the sheep-wheat belt,
Reid(78) concluded that most woodland birds face serious
problems in at least parts of their range as a consequence of
wholesale clearing for agriculture. Altogether, 85 species or 35
per cent of native landbirds in the sheep-wheat belt were
identified in at least one study to be locally extinct, declining
or otherwise at risk.(79) On the New England Tablelands
of NSW, 47 per cent of landbird species found in dry forests and
woodlands are in decline.(80)

In rural Victoria, 41 species of land bird are
threatened and at least another 57 land bird species are declining,
with local extinctions.(81) Victoria has decided to list
the entire Victorian temperate-woodland bird community as
threatened. The community includes 24 woodland-dependent birds,
several of which have already been recommended for listing as
Threatened.

The pattern of declines noted in the eastern
States is repeated in the agricultural zone of Western Australia.
Of 109 species of birds recorded in the WA wheatbelt, 50 per cent
of all birds and 88 per cent of resident passerines have declined
in range or abundance since European settlement.(82) Two
species, Gilbert's whistler and thick-billed grasswren, have been
lost from the wheatbelt, and different districts are showing
individual losses. Three districts have lost 15 species of a
recorded total of 131 with a further 24 declining in range and/or
abundance. The previously-common purple-crowned lorikeet, restless
flycatcher and yellow-plumed honeyeater are now rare vagrants in
one district.(83)

About one third of the 300 species of native
birds in the Mount Lofty Ranges near Adelaide are in serious
decline.(84) The brown treecreeper, scarlet robin,
restless flycatcher, diamond firetail and black-chinned honeyeater
are now rarely seen. The list of decliners also includes the
southern boobook, tawny frogmouth, sacred kingfisher and
white-winged triller, while several Mount Lofty endemics such as
the local forms of southern emu-wren, spotted quail-thrush and
chestnut-rumped heathwren are classed as Critically Endangered or
Endangered. Remnant vegetation in the Mount Lofty Ranges is less
than 10 per cent of the original.

In Queensland, the Southern Brigalow Belt bio
region is home to 328 species of birds; three of the species are
listed as Endangered and 21 as Vulnerable or Rare. The paradise
parrot is now extinct, and there have been local extinctions of
squatter pigeons, turquoise parrots and black-throated and star
finches.

The structure of savannahs ranges from open
forests, through very open woodlands to open grasslands. The
subtropical savannahs-grasslands with varying tree cover, occurring
in Queensland and northeastern NSW, and including the Southern
Brigalow Belt-have largely been cleared over the last 50 years, a
process that is still continuing.(85) At least seven
species of ground-feeding granivorous birds have substantially
disappeared from these areas. These are:

Squatter pigeon

Black-throated finch

Diamond firetail

Paradise parrot (extinct)

Crimson finch

Turquoise parrot

Star finch

At least six of the seven were in decline in the
nineteenth century or the first half of the twentieth century, the
pastoral era prior to widespread clearance. Undoubtedly the full
effects of recent clearing have yet to be revealed and further
losses are likely.

The tropical savannahs of Queensland and the NT
have largely escaped clearing up to the present. However, the
declines associated with pastoralism noted in sub-tropical
savannahs are now being seen in the tropical savannahs, and
15 species of birds are in decline:(86)

Emu

Black treecreeper

Chestnut-backed button-quail

Purple-crowned fairy-wren

Common bronzewing
(decline in WA and NT only)

White-browed robin
(decline in WA only)

Flock bronzewing

Star finch

Partridge pigeon

Crimson finch
(decline in Queensland only)

Wonga pigeon

Chestnut-breasted mannikin
(decline in Queensland only)

Princess parrot

Gouldian finch

Golden-shouldered parrot

The bird species affected are those that feed on
the ground or among herbage; many are seed-eaters. For once, land
clearing is not to blame. The problems are most intense where
cattle grazing is also most intense. Even quite low-intensity
cattle grazing can affect seed production by grasses. In addition,
the Aboriginal burning regime produced a finer-scale mosaic of
burnt and unburnt patches that the present wholesale annual burning
of many areas. Thus the causes of bird declines in tropical
savannahs appear to be quite different from those in more temperate
areas-they appear to be associated with pastoral activity and
changes to Aboriginal burning regimes. However, the prospect of
large increases in land clearing in northern Australia will
undoubtedly have further repercussions on biodiversity. The current
developments are not sustainable and it is very doubtful that they
will prove viable in the longer term.

Losses are not confined to agricultural
areas-preliminary data from the Second Atlas shows that the scarlet
robin is only half as likely to be seen now in the forests and
woodlands of southeastern Australia, generally coastwards of the
Divide, as it was 20 years ago.(87) The Second Atlas
data also shows that banded lapwing, black-shouldered kite, brown
falcon, red-browed treecreeper, wedge-tailed eagle and emu are less
common than 20 years ago, with regional variation.

The processes by which loss and fragmentation of
habitat bring about bird declines are reasonably well understood.
They stem from a consideration of the theory of island
biogeography. Studies of islands have shown that species are lost
from a recently-separated island in inverse proportion to its size
and distance from the mainland. As applied to native vegetation
habitat fragments-'islands' in a sea of agricultural land-we see
that more bird species will be lost in smaller fragments and in
those that are further from a large patch of similar habitat. When
an 'island' is separated from the 'mainland', it initially contains
more species than it is capable of holding. Species are lost over
time, a process called species 'relaxation', until an equilibrium
is reached, when there is no net loss of species. An alternative
term is 'extinction debt'.

When an 'island' is separated, it contains only
some of the complexity of the original; some animals and plants
will be missing simply due to chance. Thus the new ecosystem will
be less complex than the original, and so by its very nature is
able to support fewer species, which are then lost from the system
over time. For habitat 'islands', it is found that the edges become
progressively degraded, thus reducing the effective size of the
patch still further. The remaining fragmented patches of native
vegetation are further degraded by various physical (temperature,
wind), chemical (pesticide and fertiliser overspray) and biological
(natural and exotic predators, people) agents at their edges, thus
making them progressively smaller.

The proximate reasons for species loss from
fragments vary between species, but important factors include:

the inability of sedentary species to colonise or recolonise
distant patches

easier access for exotic and natural predators, requirement for
a large and complex patch for survival

lack of sufficient good habitat to act as a refuge in hard
times, and

too few individuals to form a genetically viable
population.

The hooded robin has been identified as being at
risk in all studies carried out in the sheep-wheat belt of NSW. Its
habitat requirements are somewhat demanding; it needs complex areas
of at least 100 ha, with plenty of fallen timber, for continued
survival. Habitat fragmentation and the 'tidying up' of patches of
bush by farmers contribute to its decline. Similarly, the speckled
warbler requires a large, complex, 'untidy' area of some
100 ha for survival.

Although the requirements for some species may
seem excessive, it must be remembered that the birds have been able
to survive good and bad periods in the past by expanding their
ranges in good seasons and contracting to 'refuge' localities in
bad periods. When much of their habitat has been removed, the birds
are able to survive in small patches only until conditions worsen,
when they are likely to die out in that locality. There is much
anecdotal evidence of local extinctions following a bad drought,
for instance. Birds such as the brown treecreeper are sedentary,
and males rarely disperse from their natal area. They are virtually
unable to recolonise habitat that is fragmented and are
particularly vulnerable to local extinction in small habitat
patches.

As habitat fragmentation continues, populations
of sedentary species are themselves fragmented into smaller, more
isolated units. These smaller populations then become more
vulnerable to stress events such as drought, during which food
shortage may lead to the death of adults or failure to breed. Once
breeding fails, the probability of recruitment of new birds is
extremely low, the chance of immigration being reduced by the
isolation of the patch. Thus habitat fragmentation is the prime
cause of decline and local extinction, with additional stresses
such as droughts or failure of trees to flower delivering the final
blow. Isolated populations have been shown to disappear from local
areas following the 1981-83 drought.

The pattern of losses are often occurring very
rapidly, in the space of a few decades. There are two reasons for
the observed lag between land clearing and bird losses-birds are
able to subsist in small fragments for some time before a
catastrophic event causes them to die out, and small Australian
passerines are often long-lived, a lifespan of 10 years being not
unusual.

Many of Australia's birds are nomadic, in
response to a generally favourable but erratic climate, bringing on
the blossoming of trees and shrubs at different places and
different times. Unfortunately, there are signs that the
land-clearing presently occurring, especially in Queensland, will
have disastrous effects on birds, with special impacts on a group
little touched up to now-the honeyeaters. Thus the impact of
over-clearing is not likely to be restricted to locally or
regionally-occurring birds, but will have severe and detrimental
effects on nomadic and migratory species such as honeyeaters,
lorikeets, swift parrot, rufous whistler and white-throated
warbler.

Twenty-nine native and seven introduced species
have been diagnosed as stable or increasing in the NSW sheep-wheat
belt.(89) The list is (introduced species are
indicated*):

Nankeen kestrel

Yellow-throated miner

Australian magpie

Crested pigeon

White-plumed honeyeater

Pied currawong

Peaceful dove

Brown songlark

Australian raven

Galah

Rock dove*

Little raven

Little corella

Spotted turtle-dove*

White-winged chough

Sulphur-crested cockatoo

Skylark*

Richard's pipit

Cockatiel

House sparrow*

Zebra finch

Eastern rosella

Magpie-lark

Welcome swallow

Bluebonnet

Willy wagtail

Fairy martin

Red-rumped parrot

Black-faced cuckoo-shrike

European goldfinch*

Yellow-rumped thornbill

Black-faced woodswallow

Common blackbird*

Noisy miner

Pied butcherbird

Common starling*

This list should be viewed with some caution as
two species, namely black-faced woodswallow and Richard's pipit,
are in decline in some areas. Possible reasons for these losses are
droughts and a general loss in complexity in agricultural land.
Dying trees cut for firewood could adversely affect the black-faced
woodswallow and other species. Another possibility is that these
species may not be able to adapt to the intensification of
agriculture that is now occurring in some marginal areas.

Andreas Glanzig and Michael Kennedy, 'From Words to Action:
Addressing biodiversity loss, land degradation and native
vegetation clearance in the 1990s-the Australian experience'.
Nature Conservation Council of NSW for the Community Biodiversity
Network, 11 July 2000; website at http://www.cbn.org.au.

Dr Hal Cogger, 'Conserving Australia's reptiles-are we
serious?' Nature Conservation Council of NSW for the Community
Biodiversity Network, 28 May 2001; website at http://www.cbn.org.au.

S. Walpole, 'Economic Values of Native Vegetation', Nature
Conservation Council of NSW for the Community Biodiversity Network,
12 December 2000; website at: http://www.cbn.org.au.

R. Gillespie, op. cit., pp. 13-14.

M. Lockwood, S. C. Walpole and C. A. Miles, 'Economics of
remnant native vegetation conservation on private property',
LWRRDC Research Report, no. 2/2000, Land and Water
Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra,
2000.

A. F. Bennett, 'Wildlife conservation and management on private
land-facing the challenge', in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse and T.
Clark (eds) People and nature conservation. Perspectives on
private land use and endangered species recovery, Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, 1995, pp.
119-27.

P. Bateson, 'Incentives for Sustainable Land Management: a
guide for Local Government', Environment Australia, Canberra and
Environs Australia, Melbourne, 2000.

FarmBis is a Commonwealth/State program that began in 1997 for
skills training of farmers. The program now has two components: the
Commonwealth/State component, which trains primary producers in
business management, and the National component, which supports
strategic national projects that improve the profitability and
sustainability of agricultural industries. In the May 2001 Budget,
the Federal Government boosted funding for skills training of
farmers under the scheme to the extent of $167.5 million over four
years.

B. Madden and G. Hayes, 'Repairing the Country: National
Investment in Rural Landscapes', Prepared for the Australian
Conservation Foundation and the National Farmers Federation, with
assistance from the Land and Water Resources Research and
Development Corporation, April 2000. Available at ACF
website:
http://www.acfonline.org.au/campaigns/landm/indepth/ACFNFFfullreport.htm

H. A. Ford and G. Barrett, 'The role of birds and their
conservation in agricultural systems', in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse
and T. Clark (eds) People and nature conservation. Perspectives
on private land use and endangered species recovery, Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, 1995, pp.
128-34.

A. Bennett, S. Kimber and P. Ryan, 'Revegetation and Wildlife-A
guide to enhancing revegetated habitats for wildlife conservation
in rural environments', Bushcare National Research and
Development Program Research Report 2/00, 2000.